These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Build Costs

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#461 - 2013-05-17 13:17:06 UTC
Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:

dude if u want to control inflation increase LP payouts.. they soak up isk like nothing...


Very true but one of the issues is also the tags. I know they basically cost ISK.. Hmm oh well on the other hand if LP payouts increase it will affect tags too. Tags are bit problematic to obtain them, you need either ISK or people that risk their empire standing for them. If standing loss stays as it is with destruction of empire vessels I am afraid that this would lead into monster price tags yet it would make it more worth to make those missions that give such tags.

Good idea but hopefully tag mechanism would be altered slightly that it was not such standing **** to obtain them.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#462 - 2013-05-17 19:55:24 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:
"according to the OP, they will all be raised to that level, so thre new Apoc will be ~240 mill isk. "

No where in the original post does it say that. No where. The new Apoc will be around 170-175 with mineral prices set to decrease and a pre-patch apocs not evaporating.




I've never known an ingame change that has done anything other than raise mineral costs, I cannot see any reason as to why they will come down. The inflation is here to stay.



Really? YOu were not here when they introduced drone regions and mineral prices droped to 1/5th of their previous prices within 2 months?

Also when they nerfed insurance fraud, that droped the consumption of minrals so massively that the price droped about 30%.


The thigns that made the price go up were, L4 loot MASSIVE nerf and the large attack on BOT miners.


Funny that you mentioned that, cause everything is much higher than it used to be. So where is this price drop again?
It certainly doesnt show in game.
Inna Cristiana
GucciGang
#463 - 2013-05-17 22:46:22 UTC
I agree. Current BS'es too cheap.
GreenSeed
#464 - 2013-05-17 23:13:10 UTC
Theia Matova wrote:
GreenSeed wrote:
ehp needs to go way up on battleships.


I do agree but if EHP raises then the damage done needs to scale as well. Or we end in situation where no one can no one.


Suzuka A1 wrote:

Keep in mind that just because you have more EHP it doesn't mean that you can tank more, aka buffer tank.



exactly, raising EHP while at the same time lowering resistances shifts the logic of the engagement from alpha, to slow bleeds. raising the TTK on ships while lowering the effectiveness of triage.

and lets not kid our self's, triage is supposed to be a tactical move to make a target less desirable, or to allow said target to reposition and lower incoming dps. as it is now, triage makes the repped target invulnerable until Alpha = EHP. this is the reason the blob wins, and this is the reason battleships see any use at all.

if battleships had 4x or 5x the ehp but with a terrible rep effectiveness, then instead of having fleets try to achieve that Alpha=EHP point, the tactical move to make would be to spread damage and force real triage. and having such over inflated TTK would compensate mission runners and incursion runners from losing resistances.

the problem now as i see it is the absurd level of resistances everything has. as soon as stuff gets past 70% resists under links it wont die under 2 - 3 logi reps or one carrier.

55% resists per module or 30% omni from one module makes sense on t3, hacs and most t1s, but when you get to battleships and capitals that doesn't make sense anymore. a simple -60% effectiveness on modules fitted would help, paired with a very generous EHP boost ofc. (my main would also like his blapping back, ty.)

anyway, the point is, playing alpha games with 100m ships is expensive and somewhat reasonable, playing it with 200m isk ships its not, it wont happen at all. simply because abc's do the same alpha for 1/4th the cost. even if a abc fleet gets crushed by a bs one, it will still walk away from the fight inflicting twice as much damage in isk. Blink so this changes are "fighting the blob" not on the reasons we have blobs, but instead by making it too expensive.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#465 - 2013-05-17 23:30:30 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:
"according to the OP, they will all be raised to that level, so thre new Apoc will be ~240 mill isk. "

No where in the original post does it say that. No where. The new Apoc will be around 170-175 with mineral prices set to decrease and a pre-patch apocs not evaporating.




I've never known an ingame change that has done anything other than raise mineral costs, I cannot see any reason as to why they will come down. The inflation is here to stay.



Really? YOu were not here when they introduced drone regions and mineral prices droped to 1/5th of their previous prices within 2 months?

Also when they nerfed insurance fraud, that droped the consumption of minrals so massively that the price droped about 30%.


The thigns that made the price go up were, L4 loot MASSIVE nerf and the large attack on BOT miners.


Funny that you mentioned that, cause everything is much higher than it used to be. So where is this price drop again?
It certainly doesnt show in game.



Ships used to be around that same price back in red moon rising. THey droped a LOT then recently risen again.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Unit757
North Point
#466 - 2013-05-17 23:39:59 UTC
If this "extra Materials" thing is going to be how your balancing material requirements for ships now, can you please make it so that player skills and BP ME levels will actually change the number?
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#467 - 2013-05-18 01:31:56 UTC
Unit757 wrote:
If this "extra Materials" thing is going to be how your balancing material requirements for ships now, can you please make it so that player skills and BP ME levels will actually change the number?


Agreed. For a new player, especially step 10 of the industry tutorial arc, it takes 3-4 trips around the system area to get the proper amount of minerals because none of the base mineral modifiers ("You = xxx") show up on the "Extra" minerals.

This is another one of those systems that makes old timers laugh and new players quit, with no real benefits.

None of your new players care that some people can refine their old battleships for more money. Those folks already have enough infrastructure that a 20-30% wealth boost is trivial for them and won't affect their gameplay.

The current system only screws those new to manufacturing, and will continue to get worse.

My vote is to swallow the pill, and roll all the extra mineral values into the base minerals, and let the economy stabilize in a month or two. Seeing tons of ships on the market for less than what it takes to build them today is worse, IMO.

--gos
Godhevel I
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#468 - 2013-05-18 04:40:30 UTC
Freya Kaundur wrote:
first in the flame war that will start. good luck and have fun. let the forum pvp start


You were dead accurate in regards to the flame war that erupted from this. Using common sense though in regards to this topic, I don't think people will have any problem getting into a battleship anymore than they already do.

Alliance/Corps already have enough money to fit these, the only thing that is going to effect them is wars that causes a lot of them to get destroyed. Though I do wish they would get a buff from all these nerfs I have been seeing on the Caldari side, the Raven is not worth that amount, period.

TL;DR - People have enough money for this stuff ( Especially Corps ), but the cost vs. effectiveness of these ships is pretty damn abysmal.
Arch1bald
Lightning Squad
Snuffed Out
#469 - 2013-05-19 00:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Arch1bald
Great Idea! No imm full of crud.

So ermm lazy ccp attempted to rebalance BS's. Okay, and they are doing a **** poor job of it atm.

So the crapy raven is now too expensive for its usefullness. The domi has already spiked 40m + and the min difference didnt come yet. Are you kidding me?????????????????????????

So you lazy ccp guys think the prices arent high enough for someone to "feel" like they are in a big ship, great your ego is too fking high.

A BS isnt worth 2 BC's with the "old" pricing. Now they arent worth a BC. So congrats, instead of ppl going to use a t1 BS, they will fly a t1 BC that has 50 less dps and 25k less tank and be a fraction of the crapier BS anyway.


If you feel some of the BS's are too cheap, fix that. Dont just well, were lazy semi competent guys so lets boost the price, so no one will use them, because they arent worth a damm anyway.

Brutix is pvp cost wise now better then the domi, 40m brutix vs a 140m domi? Considering prices have already spiked, and min cost is going up, so ppl will jack the price up some more.

120m = 3 brutix 120m = 1 Domi (at current pricing). This IS NOT A BALANCE YOU IGNORANT ****************************.

When you can do more with the same value of lesser ships, it will drive the demand for the crapier more expensive ships down.

BS's are a step above BC's. They are only a tick better in most cases. The difference in cost however is large.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#470 - 2013-05-19 01:38:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnson Oramara
CCP Rise wrote:

So then, if prices are to be more level, where should this new price line be set? The obvious answer would be to just average the cost of all battleships and then set the prices at that average - top tier prices would come down, and bottom would go up. Unfortunately, with battleships, this was not possible. Top tier battleships represent an enormous amount of mineral consumption in EVE at their current costs. That means that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered.

So basically you are admitting that you failed to balance them and don't believe they will get used even after the balance is done?
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#471 - 2013-05-19 20:32:53 UTC
You young folk don't know how good you have it nowadays.

Back in my time we had to ritually sacrifice our children to get a Battleship.



I still can hear the screams at night... oh, the screams...

Twisted

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#472 - 2013-05-19 21:35:46 UTC
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
You young folk don't know how good you have it nowadays.

Back in my time we had to ritually sacrifice our children to get a Battleship.



I still can hear the screams at night... oh, the screams...

Twisted



I didnt mind sacrificing children, I kick babies for sport.

Oh you mean figuratively by wallet amount. Umm you all didnt see what I said above.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#473 - 2013-05-23 01:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
CCP Rise wrote:

Quote:
Is there intention to ever roll these minerals back into the overall ship cost, so that ships have a price floor tied to the mineral price again?


It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.



So will the insurance include the extra cost or will the current tier 1 ships never really get the tech 1 insurance benefit?

If I buy a dominix for 210 million will it always only insure for 90 mill?

If that is the case the former tier 3 battleships will have a huge economic advantage, because the former tier 1 BS's will insure like tech 2 ships.

Maybe the extras can gradually be included in insurance over time?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#474 - 2013-05-23 21:21:46 UTC
Cearain wrote:

If I buy a dominix for 210 million will it always only insure for 90 mill?

If that is the case the former tier 3 battleships will have a huge economic advantage, because the former tier 1 BS's will insure like tech 2 ships.

Maybe the extras can gradually be included in insurance over time?


I support the idea of gradually increasing the insurance payout over several patches at the very least.

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#475 - 2013-05-25 19:03:09 UTC
Rroff wrote:
progodlegend wrote:


I can remember numerous times when alliances in 0.0 have stopped using battleship fleets temporarily because of the costs of losing them, so it's not crazy to think that a price reduction would lead to a usage increase.


I think this will somewhat be counter balanced by the fact that we now have a lot more interesting/useable cruiser/bc choices than in the past and the coming updates will be incrementing on that again.


That's not counterbalancing. This is exacerbating the existing gap and pushing an already dead ship class further in the hole.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#476 - 2013-05-25 23:10:28 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
Unit757 wrote:
If this "extra Materials" thing is going to be how your balancing material requirements for ships now, can you please make it so that player skills and BP ME levels will actually change the number?


Agreed. For a new player, especially step 10 of the industry tutorial arc, it takes 3-4 trips around the system area to get the proper amount of minerals because none of the base mineral modifiers ("You = xxx") show up on the "Extra" minerals.

This is another one of those systems that makes old timers laugh and new players quit, with no real benefits.

None of your new players care that some people can refine their old battleships for more money. Those folks already have enough infrastructure that a 20-30% wealth boost is trivial for them and won't affect their gameplay.

The current system only screws those new to manufacturing, and will continue to get worse.

My vote is to swallow the pill, and roll all the extra mineral values into the base minerals, and let the economy stabilize in a month or two. Seeing tons of ships on the market for less than what it takes to build them today is worse, IMO.

--gos


The bug with Extra Materials and Production Efficiency <5 resulting in inaccurate BP descriptions has been around for a while, and has been bug reported by a number of people (old and new) that I know of. I suggest you also bug report it.

Creating an enormous free (as in unmined) mineral fountain is not the appropriate way to fix a UI bug.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
xCassiopiax
Naari LLC
#477 - 2013-05-26 17:46:24 UTC
Jumping these hulls out to null will become expensive because of the anticipated sky rocketing cost of jump fuel further increasing the cost plus my profit margin. My advice, better buy them now while there cheap.
Enthes goldhart
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#478 - 2013-05-26 22:50:27 UTC
you are shitting on mission runners with this price change, mainly new players.
Bigg Gun
T.I.E. Inc.
#479 - 2013-05-27 08:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Bigg Gun
back when the domi was 60 mil it was such a great ship to lose, and to win in. If bigger doesn't necessarily mean better, does it mean it's worse?
Right now bigger means worse. Slower and in a lot of cases with less DPS. And to top it all 4x the price.

And I thought price wasn't supposed to be a part of the balance? If you cut off а big part of the ships from the newer players doesn't that mean that you're trying to balance the game using price? Slow down the progress?

All in all, removing the tiers didn't make all the ships of equal power, it didn't even improve the lower tiers, it just made them more and more inaccessible.

The big alliances make the big money, inflation makes the isk cost less and less, ultimately driving the in game currency into the worthless and undesirable status.

If isk dies game dies. If I need to spend a plex just to buy and equip a tier 1 ship, do you honestly think that I'd want that plex. It's not like that t1 ship is immortal. If you make the t1 ships cost that much that they NEED to be immortal ultimately you're forcing the players to not risk them in any meaningless violence situations. And meaningless violence is what the game runs on.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#480 - 2013-05-28 20:45:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
My take on the OP: Tier 1 BS .. blah blah blah .. strong feelings .. blah .. want them to be more expensive .. blah .. inflation .. blah .. "extra" minerals .. blah blah .. graphs .. blah .. more ISK earning from incursions .. blah .. 60 mil price increase .. blah .. various tier prices and performance correlations .. blah .. making up technical sounding stuff .. blah blah .. and so increasing tier 1 BS prices will happen.

Smile and feel good about justifying a price hike with a bunch of meaningless technical phrases. .. omg! Next step, sell snow to eskimos.

Added: Folks, a price hike does ONLY ONE THING: Decrease the desire to use the thing whose price increased. So who in CCP hates tier 1 BS now?.. and why?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein